Of encirclement and counter-encirclement

Look! the dragon is coming

In the past few years India has constantly expressed its deep concern for what is termed as the “string of pearls”. A term coined by the US defence department with reference to China’s active involvement in ports across the Indian maritime borders. China has engaged in developing ports in Sittwe in Myanmar, Chittagong in Bangladesh, Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Gwadar in Pakistan. This has given China access to India’s maritime boundaries and a future where China might have its naval bases at these ports. This is indeed alarming for India, especially when China is also building up its military capabilities with Intercontinental ballistic missiles and a refurbished aircraft carrier. China’s cosy relationship with Pakistan is another eye sore.

China is also becoming aggressive in the South China Sea with maritime disputes with all its neighbours (and in East China Sea with Japan). If all the disputes were to be resolved to China’s satisfaction it will virtually claim sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, hence controlling the shipping lanes vital for trade among South East Asian countries and between South East Asia, Far East and India.  Western countries including America have shown their concern over the increasing China presence in Asian region.

And look what the elephant was up to

This all looks extremely serious and at times worrying. But if seen from a neutral point of view, there is nothing alarming in the present situation. China is the second largest economy of the world (although a distant second to America), is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and has grown in the global pecking order in last few decades. It is only natural for an emerging country (and in some areas emerged) to expand its influence in its neighbourhood and near abroad. America has done this after the second world war, the UK did it till it came under sever financial strain after the two world wars and India is doing its bit post liberalisation.

Stop encircling me

While India’s concerns may sound valid, a deeper look reveals that most of this is self inflicted. India has played cold to the opportunities arising in its immediate neighbourhood. The state owned enterprises of India are inefficient and struggle to perform on the home front (barring a few like ONGC, an oil exploration firm). Expecting them perform abroad will be naïve. India after months of delay and going back and forth on a joint venture power plant in Northern Sri Lankan city of Trincomalee, has finally agreed on the terms and conditions of an agreement which it intends to sing later this month. The first power plant went to China.

Hambantota, the much talked about strategic foothold of China was initially offered to India. Lack of interest by India proved to be China’s gain and it is now developing an integrated project including a sea port, an airport, a city centre, a stadium and a convention centre. If every thing goes well Hambantota will welcome its first ship six months before the deadline. Meanwhile a USD 300 million project of Colombo port expansion has been awarded to another Chinese company (no Indian company bid for the project). Given all the inefficiencies the Indian system has and does little to eradicate, can China really be blamed for encircling India?

The counter circle

Across the border, China too has its own concerns about India trying to encircle it, especially in its strategic neighbourhood. The first and oldest issue is of Tibet. India has given refuge to Dalai Lama ever since he fled to India following the Chinese annexation of the kingdom. India has also allowed Dalai Lama to establish a Tibetan government in exile, which virtually undermines Chinese sovereignty (however India officially maintains one China policy). More recently India has become extremely active in Afghanistan by means of its non military aid to rebuild the country. This has upset Pakistan, which sees Indian presence as an attempt to encircle it. Deep running friendship between China and Pakistan has prompted China to share Pakistan’s vision on Indian involvement in Afghanistan.

In the past decade India has refreshed its Look East Policy and has forged closer relationships with its South East Asian neighbours. The most important regional force in the region is the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). India has rapidly risen to a summit level partner in 2002 from a sectoral dialogue partner in 1992. India’s bilateral trade with ASEAN has increased dramatically from a paltry USD 2.9 billion in 1993 to USD 40 billion in 2009 (ASEAN forecasts bilateral trade to cross USD 70 billion by 2012). India also entered into a free trade agreement with ASEAN in 2009, giving it greater economic access in the region.

In 2000 India along with five other South East Asian countries (Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam) formed the Mekong Ganga Cooperation (MGC). MGC was formed as a group of six countries, focusing on tourism, culture, education and transportation. The bloc failed to take off and in 2003 was replaced by Thailand initiated Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy or ACMECS, essentially the same countries as in MGC minus India. Not withstanding the fact, China might still see it as Indian entry into its backyard.

India has improved its bilateral relationships with Japan and South Korea in the past few years. India is increasing its naval footprint by conducting joint exercises with Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, The Philippines, New Zealand, etc. It also carried out an exercise with America and Japan in the Pacific in 2007. In 2008, India and Japan signed an agreement on joint patrolling of the Asia – Pacific region.

Whose circle is it anyways?

The situation might look worrying when seen through the patriotic lenses; however both India and China seem to do their bit to secure their economic and strategic interest in the region. On 25^th August Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-develops-cold-feet-on-talks-with-Japan-US/opinions/9726482.cms) reported that India has developed cold feet on a planned joint naval exercise with Japan and America. Undisclosed officials in the establishment say that India does not want to antagonise China. However, China has not lodged a formal protest regarding the planned exercise. Such an approach by India can be interpreted as being intimidated by a superior military neighbour.

Pre empting a non existent crisis should be replaced by confidence building measures. Both India and china are a growing power in their own right and have significant interest in each other’s affairs. Imagining a conventional war between the two is far fetched, if not hysterical. Both countries are busy fighting domestic problems and expanding their business interests. A war will set both countries back by a few decades. India and China should shed some of their fears (more in case of India) and enter into closer relationship by more people to people contact. In 2010 a paltry 600,000 tourists were exchanged between India and China. It is a shame for neighbours whose combined population is above 2 billion.

India’s improving Bangla relations

Out from the cold storage

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will breathe a little easy on September 6^th and 7^th. He will be on a state visit to Bangladesh, away from heat of the anti corruption movement back home. Prime Minister Singh’s visit is closely watched by many in India and Bangladesh (more closely by Bangladesh media). After a long period of hostile and unfriendly governments in Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has come as a welcome change. Relationships between the two countries have improved significantly with a state visit by Prime Minister Hasina in early 2010. The current visit by India is expected to further strengthen the relationship.

After the first military coup in Bangladesh which eliminated the entire family of its first Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rehman (from which Sheikh Hasina escaped), India lost interest in its neighbour. Domestic issues, Pakistan and an escalating cold war kept India busy. Lack of active Indian interest and successive regimes hostile to India were used by China and Pakistan to nurture insurgency in North Eastern states of India. Matter got worse with thousands of Bangladeshis migrating illegally into India for economic reasons. In effect India Bangladesh relations were strained.

Off late it has dawned upon India to actively involve Bangladesh and forge a mutually beneficial relationship. India sees a great prospect of connecting its North East with rest of the country by means of transit corridors. Currently it is extremely difficult to connect its North East through the existing Siliguri corridor (also known as ‘chicken neck’), which is barely 20 km wide at some points. For people living in India’s North East, transportation is a major issue and is often expensive. Air travel is the only means to travel quickly. Other critical matters like disaster management, health services, food supply, etc proves to be difficult owing to long distances to be covered and wastage in transit.

Bring it to the table

With Bangladesh doing its bit to curb anti India activities on its soil, India wants extend the deal and include infrastructure to connect to its remote region. India and Bangladesh together have identified transit corridors which will help not just India and Bangladesh, but Nepal and Bhutan too will be able to make use of transit corridors to connect to the ports in Bangladesh. India has extended a credit line worth $ 1 billion on concessional terms to implement the project.

Let the barbed wire not stop the dove

India and Bangladesh are also working hard to resolve their border issues. The two countries share the longest international border in the world (4,100 km) and also have a unique situation of enclaves and counter enclaves in each other’s territories. A solution is expected to be arrived at before Prime Minister Singh visits Dhaka early next month. Available information suggest at a possible land swap to firm up the border. This will be a first complete border settlement case for India.

One of the most sensitive issues between India and Bangladesh was of shooting of illegal migrants (most of them are Bangladeshis). India’s Border Security Force (BSF) killed 33 Bangladeshis in 2010, while they were crossing over illegally into India. This had not gone down well with the government and common man in Bangladesh. Killing of Felani, a teenage girl by the BSF was widely criticised by Bangladesh and international media and human rights agencies. A meeting between home ministers of the two countries has resolved the issue with India promising not to shoot any one crossing the border.

On the trade front India and Bangladesh did trade worth $ 2.6 billion, which is close to 0.58% of India’s total trade. This can definitely be improved. Prime Minister Singh should take this opportunity to foster closer business ties with Bangladesh, offering greater private investment in the country. Taking advantage of India’s strengths in information technology, companies like TCS and Infosys should be encouraged to set shops in Bangladesh. Active involvement in Bangladesh’s economy will ally fears of a sell off to India. India and Bangladesh should eventually move towards a free trade agreement where there is no list of negative trade items.

For all this to happen, both countries should upgrade their surface transport. A road or train trip to Dhaka from Indian state of West Bengal can take as long at 12 hours, to cover 400 km. To ensure more people to people contact, a convenient transport system is very important. A swift system will ensure more cross border movement and hence closer cultural ties. India and Bangladesh share a lot in common, from Rabindra Nath Taogre who wrote the national anthem of both countries to a common language (in West Bengal) to culinary habits and of course the love for cricket. Bringing the two countries closer will not be difficult provided India plays its cards wisely. 

India and its global ambitions

Yes, no, maybe…

The weeks that followed the fall of Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn as the chief of International Monetary Fund and the subsequent world tour by Ms Christine Lagarde to drum up support for her election to the office, India joined the chorus of developing countries to have adequate representation. The bloc of developing countries (India, China, Brazil, Mexico, etc) was challenging the tradition where IMF was always headed by a European. Briefly Mr Agustin Carstens, governor of Mexico’s Central Bank tried to rally support from developing countries including India. However, none of the developing countries managed to arrive at a consensus and Ms Lagarde, was eventually elected to the office. In the mean while China decided to support Ms Lagarde’s candidature in return of a larger responsibility for China in the IMF.

India is often viewed as unprepared when it comes to multilateral decisions which have global implication. We have seen this in case of the EU-India free trade agreement, WTO’s Doha round and more recently the climate change summit. Long winded processes which seem to take for ever, due to lack of preparedness or vested interests or some time misplaced sovereign pride. India which has done remarkably well on bilateral fronts is severely lacking on multilateral fronts. That being the case, India’s global ambitions are only growing. For the past two decades India has been pressing for a reformed United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with a permanent seat for itself. India along with Brazil, Germany and Japan formed an interest group known as G4 to push for the reform and subsequent expansion of the UNSC. All countries on the permanent council support India’s candidature; however any reform in the near future is a remote possibility.

Running the extra lap

It is a well acknowledge fact that India has arrived on the global scene in the past two decades. It has acquired an enviable position of upholding democratic values and churning out a fast growing large economy from a country which was on brink of sovereign default. Most of the recent global initiatives of India have been largely trade and commerce centred. The world is yet to see India take an assertive and sustainable step in global diplomacy, some thing that the established and emerging world powers have already shown. India has traditionally shied away from any matters which can potentially (some times falsely assumed) upset its diplomatic equilibrium.

In the past India has given the excuse of having its hands full with housekeeping activities and establishing order with in the country. In the past two decades much has changed, both within India and outside. Indian diaspora is now much more active around the world, Indian trade and commerce has spread to once far off countries and Indian views are listened to around the world. India’s inclusion in the G-20 has further raised its profile. India’s contribution towards handling of the recent financial crisis has proved its abilities as a mature economic power to the world. Both the developed and the developing world see India in a different light now. It’s no longer an aid seeking and famine struck country of the 60s.  

The tiger sleeps on

With so many changes, India has surprisingly lagged in international diplomacy. It has always taken a reluctant and meek stand on matters of international importance. The latest being the abstention from the UNSC resolution 1973 approving a no-fly zone over Libya. India’s excuse was that armed intervention should be the last resort after the efforts of UN appointed envoy fail, which was not yet implemented. In a situation where a despot is hell bent on killing his own countrymen an armed intervention is more of a humanitarian effort than military one. People opposed to UNSC resolution can argue that past military interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan) have proved anything but useful. For every person sighting Iraq or Afghanistan there is Rwanda and Srebrenica where armed interventions have brought an end to genocides. No-fly zone over Libya was the best possible action at a time when Mr Qaddafi was killing his own country men. India missed the boat.

On other sensitive issues like nuclear proliferation too India has no consistent stand. India’s concern on nuclear proliferation ends at Indo-Pak border. To some extent India’s reluctance stemmed from sanctions imposed by the west after its operation “Smiling Buddha” in 1974. But in the aftermath of international recognition of India as an official nuclear power (in shape of Indo-US nuclear deal) it should now take a firm stand on the issue. It should have a clear policy on Iran and North Korea. So far nothing has come forth.

One thing that India has failed to leverage to its benefit is its unparalleled achievement in nurturing and maintaining democratic standards. India should play its democratic card at international forum to establish itself as a mature country, which believes in fair play and respects public involvement. This will help it balance against its biggest rival, China. While the Tibetan government in exile has its seat in New Delhi, India does not use it like China uses stapled visas for people living in Indian states of Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh.

Its time India metamorphose itself into a country which has more than just cheap labour, growing auto market and consumers hungry for foreign products. Time has come that it takes on the world stage with confidence. It should stop bothering itself with myopic electoral gains while shaping its foreign policy. India has already lost time in catching up on the lost opportunities. The present reactive policy of India should shift to proactive and a widely thought through policy, which can support India’s claim to international institutions like UNSC, IMF or possibly G6 (G5 + 1). 

The Afghan roadmap

Roles reversed

India has pledged to spend $ 1.2 billion as non military aid in Afghanistan between the years 2002 - 2013. This comes as a surprise for a country which is a major recipient of international aid. One might choose to consider India’s aid as a tool to assert its influence (some like to phrase it as strategic foothold) in Afghanistan. India has involved itself in a big way in rebuilding the war torn country. In past nine years it has got its foot in virtually every aspect of Afghan redevelopment, be it the Zaranj – Delaram road connection on Heart – Kandahar highway, Salma dam power project, setting up schools or building the new parliament. Apart from infrastructure projects India is also running medical care and child nutrition programmes in many Afghan cities. On a small scale India is also providing skill enhancement programmes (mostly vocational training) to Afghan youth to help them get into mainstream economy.  After nine years and pumping in 40% of the pledged aid what does India stand to gain?

Love thy neighbour 

India’s involvement in Afghanistan has not gone down well with Pakistan. It sees Indian presence as a threat in its backyard. Some hawkish institutions in Pakistan also suggest that India’s growing influence in Afghan matters is a long term conspiracy to ‘sandwich’ Pakistan (between India and Afghanistan). What ever the arguments be, India is increasingly seen as a threat by Pakistani establishment. This became apparent when Turkey under pressure from Pakistan did not invite India for the last high profile Afghan summit in Istanbul.

Will India limit itself to creating democratic infrastructure
or will it push for real democratic reforms in Afghanistan? 

A billion dollar plan for reconstruction, while the host country still battles with insurgency and terrorism is a risky proposition. Reports suggest that owing to lack of security apparatus the much talked about Zaranj – Delaram road connection is already under Taliban control. Kabul’s new parliament house being built by India (which it believes is the beacon of democracy in the largely tribal country) will house Mr Karzai (pictured) who is anything but democratic. He is facing allegations of large scale forgery and corruption in last presidential election. Afghans call Mr Karzai “king of Kabul” as the writ of his government ends at the city limits, outside which Taliban and tribal factions hold sway. So what exactly is India doing in such a place?

India sees its involvement in Afghanistan as an attempt to regain its credibility and strategic foothold which it lost after the Soviet invasion in 1979. Then a staunch Soviet ally, India supported the Soviet invasion leaving many Afghans angry. With the expulsion of Soviet troops and later a Taliban takeover, India lost all political contacts with the country. It was only in 2002 after Taliban was ousted from power that India reacted swiftly to fill the vacuum with non military aid. In the following years India once again came to be seen as a friendly country, more and more Afghans started coming to India to attend universities subsidised by Indian government. Bollywood songs could once again be heard in bazaars of Kabul and Afghanistan had its own national carrier. India found its lost neighbour once again.

What does the future hold for me? 

Till now India has made all the right noises in the country. However, the kind of role India is playing at present will not sustain it's presence for long. In a war torn country roads and power plants can be blown apart any time (as has happened in the past), schools can be closed down on whim of Taliban and food supplies can be cut off due to logistic issues (not impossible in a landlocked country). India needs to take up a greater role to rebuild the country.

The CIA world factbook estimates the Afghan GDP at $ 27.36 billion for 2010. Close to a third is contributed by opium trade. Unemployment rates are as high as 35% (2008) and an equal number of people live below the poverty line. The Afghan government collects $ 1 billion in revenues and spends $ 3.3 billion a year. Banking in the country is in a deep mess with recent scandal involving Kabul bank, the biggest bank of the country. With such a fragile situation Afghanistan needs institutions which can prepare it for future.

India should look at taking a larger responsibility of training Afghans to manage their nascent institutions like government finance, international trade and commerce, natural resources, etc. Along with institutional training India should also look at rebuilding the economy of Afghanistan. Recently the Afghan government dusted out a report from 1960s, which gives a detailed account of huge iron ore deposits in Hajigak, 130 km west of Kabul in the Bamiyan province. According to the report the region has approximately holds 1.8 billion tonnes of iron ore. In middle of 2010 the Americans declared that Afghanistan has huge deposits of previously undiscovered minerals worth a trillion dollars. These include copper, iron, cobalt, gold and lithium. 

It is no secrete that both developed and developing economies today are in dire need of natural resources. In the past decade China has extended its reach to a large part of Africa in search of natural resources to power its enviably cheap manufacturing plants. Indian companies too went abroad shopping for natural resources in Latin America, Africa and South East Asia. But the game in Afghanistan is different, especially for India. Being a landlocked country, bringing in minerals to India will be an expensive option, eroding any financial benefits. Geopolitics too will play a crucial role in Afghan-India trade ties. The only way minerals can be shipped to India is by surface transport via Pakistan or Iran to the nearest port or to northern India via Wagha. Given the strained relationship with Pakistan and a direct conflict of interest this option is far from feasible. Iran is reeling under sever international sanctions and India will not be willing to upset its relations with the west by warming up to Iran (whether India should get involved with Iran at the cost of its relationship with west can be another discussion in itself. Let’s leave it for another day).

Out of the box 

The previous article attracted a comment drawing parallels between post war Europe and present day Indian subcontinent. The comment suggested that if countries and individual have business interest then they make an effort to maintain the cordial relationship. Some thing similar should happen between India and Afghanistan.

Merely taking the mineral wealth of Afghanistan away will be extremely myopic and unfair. Exporting minerals (as and when it becomes possible) will contribute billions of dollars every year to the state exchequer, which can then be used for public welfare. However, it will take a long time for the benefits to reach the Afghan society. India should understand this and forge a long term relationship by investing in setting up large scale manufacturing plants in the country. Many Indian companies both state owned and private are interested in investing in the mines, but are held back due to logistic and security concerns. A shift in focus from merely mining to mining and manufacturing can address this problem.

Shipping of finished products directly to export markets will face less logistic challenges than shipping iron ore to India. With the setting up of manufacturing plant other support industries will come up in the region, helping the Afghan people to take up jobs in the factories or set up their own business. It is anybody’s guess what change such a situation will bring to the country. India will keep its strategic foothold in, Indian companies will benefit from high value exports (including some to India), the Afghan people will benefit and above all the Afghan government will benefit. 

India and its near neighbours

Six Decades and counting

After sixty four years and five wars, India is yet to sort a single dispute with its neighbours. On the contrary it has got itself into uncomfortable situation in the past. Be it the peacekeeping forces in Sri Lanka or constant meddling in the internal affairs of Nepal. Relationships with the neighbours are anything but cordial.

In 1971, India championed the cause of Bangladesh and helped carve a new country in South Asia. The first government of Bangladesh lead by Sheikh Mujibur Rehman looked all set to enter into a long lasting friendship with Mrs Gandhi. The dream met a premature end with the coup in 1975, which wiped out most of Bangladesh’s first family. India hardly took a second look at Bangladesh after that. With India getting more and more obsessed with its western neighbour Pakistan in the past few decades, there was hardly any attention paid to rest of neighbourhood.

India’s issues with Pakistan are deep rooted and extremely sensitive with its political class. It can be safely assumed that all the issues with Pakistan (including Kashmir) can not be resolved overnight or even in the medium term. However, this should not distract the attention of Ministry of External Affairs from its near neighbours. Pakistan is and will be an ongoing affair for a long time to come. India should spare some energy and resources to mend its ties with countries which can prove to be long term partners in regional cooperation.

What can we do?

Handing out aid is not a guarantee to good relations. Had it been the case, America should have been the world’s best friend. Secondly India can not afford to offer aid on a large scale, given the fact that there is a pressing need for social development with in the country. Under such circumstances the best way forward is to engage in increased business activity. And for once, these business activities should move beyond exchanging a few truck loads of onion and sugar, which only helps a handful of people that too for an extremely short period of time.

The long term strategy for India should be to establish business relations with countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal on a larger scale. Bangladesh after a long time has a friendly government in power. Civil war in Sri Lanka has come to an end and Nepal will sooner or later have a full time prime minister. Given these favourable situations India should push for large scale contribution to these countries in form of setting up manufacturing facilities and some kind of secondary outsourcing (which some big Indian companies already are doing with South East Asian countries).

India should look for incentives for its private sector companies from sectors like two wheelers, pharmaceuticals, FMCG, BPOs, etc to set shop in countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. This will prove to be a win all situation for the countries. The local population will benefit from employment generated at the manufacturing unit, the economy will benefit from the money pumped in, the parent company will benefit from incentives and possible relaxation in export rules to foreign markets (Bangladesh gets substantial tariff exemption for its textile export to Europe).

Economic and trade connection will inevitably bring in more people to people contact, which in turn will help reduce the trust deficit. All three countries mentioned share very close cultural, linguistic and religious bonds with India. A little push on the economic front can change the way South Asians see each other. But before India does any of this, it should raise the profile of the ministry of external affairs.